Archives‎ > ‎

Peter Myers Digest: The Economist pushes mRNA vaccines

(0) Economist (voice of the Rothschilds) pushes mRNA vaccines; suppresses Peter Daszak Gain-of-Function research(1) Economist pushes mRNA vaccines(2) Economist of Jun 27th 2020 calls Peter Daszak a "prophet"(3) Google Search for "daszak" at The Economist - only 2 hits in past 12 months, neither in connection with Gain of Function(4) Google Search for "daszak" at Soros' Project Syndicate - no mention of Daszak  in connection with Gain of Function(5) In 2016 Video, Peter Daszak admits to Gain of Function: "my colleagues in China" develop "Killer" Coronaviruses(6) Professor Sucharit Bhakdi warns of risk from mRNA vaccines(7) Economist criticises Biden for being like Trump, trying to save American jobs(0) Economist (voice of the Rothschilds) pushes mRNA vaccines, ignores warnings; suppresses Peter Daszak Gain-of-Function researchby Peter Myers, Juky 20, 2021For some years, I have been monitoring the editorial line at The Economist, since it is our most direct line to the mind of the Rothschilds.Similarly, I monitor Project Syndicate, since it is a good indication of the mind of George Soros. The columns here are syndicated by media outlets around the world.The Economist has a huge impact on the elite, who usually travel a lot by plane. The print edition is for sale at major airports worldwide. The Online edition reaches many others.The Economist pushes the mRNA vaccines, and has suppressed contrary warnings eg by Professor Sucharit Bhakdi and Dr Mike Yeadon.You can check this easily with a site-specific Google Search. Apart from using the "site" parameter, click on the "Tools" button and select Time:Past 12 months.In recent months, there has been solid evidence of Peter Daszak's role in Gain of Function research at Wuhan Institute of Virology. See item 5 below.Neither The Economist nor Project Syndicate has mentioned this AT ALL. Once again, you can check this with searches that specify "site" and "time".In item 7, The Economist criticises Joe Biden for being too much like Trump. Specifically, for trying to protect American jobs, and for turning against Globalization.This reveals the hard-nosed people at The Economist for what they are.(1) Economist pushes mRNA vaccinesSearch Google exactly as follows. There must be no space between ":" and "":"mRNA" "Pfizer" site:economist.comHere are two sample articles within the last 12 months. 9th 2020The shot that rang across the worldPfizer’s and BioNTech’s vaccine is the start of the end of the pandemicIts 90% effectiveness is as good as it gets, and bodes well for other vaccines. But getting them quickly to the right people will be hard == 27th 2021 editionThe medicine is the messageCovid-19 vaccines have alerted the world to the power of RNA therapiesAnd the molecule has many more tricks up its sleeve(2) Economist of Jun 27th 2020 calls Peter Daszak a "prophet" 27th 2020 editionPandemic-proofing the planetNew diseases are inevitable. Ensuing global calamities are notJun 25th 2020In february 2018 a panel of experts convened by the World Health Organisation (who) put together a list of diseases that posed big public-health risks but for which there were few or no countermeasures. It featured various well-recognised threats, including Ebola, sars, Zika and Rift Valley fever. But it also included "Disease X".This illness, caused by a pathogen never before seen in humans, would, the panel said, emerge from animals somewhere in a part of the world where people had encroached on wildlife habitats. It would be more deadly than seasonal influenza but would spread just as easily between people. By hitching rides on travel and trade networks, it would journey beyond its continent of origin within weeks of its emergence. It would cause the world’s next big pandemic, and leave economic and social devastation in its wake.Indeed.Less than two years after the report was published Disease X turned up. It began late last year in Wuhan, China, and the wider world became aware of it in January. It has now infected nearly 10m people and killed almost 500,000 of them. That death toll is also likely to reach seven figures before things are over. For Disease X now has a name: covid-19.I told you soThough perhaps the loudest, the who’s was not the only warning that something like this might happen. Moreover, some of the prophets, such as Peter Daszak, a disease ecologist who is head of an independent research organisation called the EcoHealth Alliance, specifically focused on the risk posed by bat-borne coronaviruses, as sars-cov-2, the cause of covid-19, has turned out to be. And the point of issuing those warnings was preparedness. With the correct systems in place a potential pandemic, spotted early, might be nipped in the bud.Instead, the world’s response to the new illness has been similar to its response to sars in 2002 and, after that, to h5n1 avian influenza in 2005. This is to move into a costly panic mode intended to slow the spread of the disease while scientists race to develop a vaccine. "This," as Dr Daszak, observes wryly, "is not a plan." ...Dr Daszak’s point is that the matters in question can and should be dealt with. Future zoonotic outbreaks are surely inevitable. But with the right precautions it should be possible to ensure that they do not, as the current one has, lead to pandemics.The precautions Dr Daszak and his colleagues have in mind add up to a three-layered defence. The first layer is a worldwide effort to find and track the hundreds of thousands of as-yet-unseen pathogens that might threaten human health. The second is the monitoring of blood samples and other indicators from people living in places where new diseases are most likely to emerge. The third is a concerted programme that employs all the data thus collected to get a head-start in the development of drugs and vaccines that might be used to meet an emerging disease halfway. [...](3) Google Search for "daszak" at The Economist - only 2 hits in past 12 months, neither in connection with Gain of Function"daszak" site:economist.comIn your Google search, go to Tools, and select Time:past year. Then press enter.I just did it (5.40pm, July 20, 2021, Australian Eastern Standard Time)THere are only 2 hits; here they are: & technologyJul 25th 2020 editionBat signalThe hunt for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 will look beyond ChinaThe virus may have been born in South-East AsiaJul 22nd 2020One of the great questions of the past six months is where sars-cov-2, the virus that causes covid-19, came from. It is thought the answer involves bats, because they harbour a variety of sars-like viruses. Yunnan, one of China’s southernmost provinces, has drawn the attention of virus hunters, as the closest-known relatives of sars-cov-2 are found there. But some think the origins of the virus are not to be found in China at all, but rather just across the border in Myanmar, Laos or Vietnam. [...] RadioPodcastsBabbageOrigin story—where did SARS-CoV-2 come from?Our podcast on the science and technology making the news. This week: our health policy editor digs into how the pandemic started, with a member of the WHO’s fact-finding mission to WuhanApr 14th 2021ALMOST A year and a half since the discovery of the virus that causes covid-19, The Economist’s health policy editor, Natasha Loder, investigates one of the pandemic’s most compelling mysteries: where did SARS-CoV-2 come from? Peter Daszak, who was part of the World Health Organisation’s controversial fact-finding mission to China, explains what evidence they gathered from Wuhan’s animal markets and the city’s microbiology laboratories. Rutime: 35 minListen on: Apple Podcasts | Spotify |Google | Stitcher | TuneIn(4) Google Search for "daszak" at Soros' Project Syndicate - no mention of Daszak  in connection with Gain of Function"daszak" site:project-syndicate.orgonly 1 hit, and it does NOT contain "daszak"; that must have been added in a Comment. Great Lockdown and Global TradeJun 8, 2021DANIEL GROS [...](5) In 2016 Video, Peter Daszak admits to Gain of Function: "my colleagues in China" develop "Killer" CoronavirusesWatch the video clip at the video clip at National Pulse.EXCLUSIVEWATCH: Explosive, Unearthed Video Shows Peter Daszak Describing 'Chinese Colleagues' Developing 'Killer' Coronaviruses.JUNE 8, 2021NATALIE WINTERSEcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak – who collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on research funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease – appears to boast about the manipulation of "killer" SARS-like coronaviruses carried out by his "colleagues in China" in a clip unearthed by The National Pulse.Daszak made the admission at a 2016 forum discussing "emerging infectious diseases and the next pandemic," which appears to be at odds with Fauci's repeated denial of funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.While describing how his organization sequences deadly viruses, Daszak describes the process of "insert[ing] spike proteins" into viruses to see if they can "bind to human cells" as being carried out by his "colleagues in China":{ 1:17:06 - 37}"Then when you get a sequence of a virus, and it looks like a relative of a known nasty pathogen, just like we did with SARS. We found other coronaviruses in bats, a whole host of them, some of them looked very similar to SARS. So we sequenced the spike protein: the protein that attaches to cells. Then we… Well I didn't do this work, but my colleagues in China did the work. You create pseudo particles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses, see if they bind to human cells. At each step of this you move closer and closer to this virus could really become pathogenic in people."You end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers," he adds.The comments follow growing evidence that Fauci's NIAID has deep financial and personnel ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – and that Daszak's EcoHealth alliance was one of the primary proxies funneling the money to the Chinese Communist Party lab.Over a dozen research papers carried out under a $3.7 million National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) grant list the Wuhan Lab's Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases Director Shi Zhengli as a co-author alongside Daszak. Shi has included these Fauci-backed grants on her resume.The Wuhan lab has also listed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as one of its "partners," secretly erasing the mention in March 2021.(6) Professor Sucharit Bhakdi warns of risk from mRNA vaccines7-minute video: video: it at Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency Economist criticises Biden for being like Trump, trying to save American jobs 17th 2021 editionAmerica and ChinaBiden's new China doctrineIts protectionism and its us-or-them rhetoric will hurt America and put off alliesJul 17th 2021Optimists long hoped that welcoming China into the global economy would make it a "responsible stakeholder", and bring about political reform. As president, Donald Trump blasted that as weak. Now Joe Biden is converting Trumpian bombast into a doctrine that pits America against China, a struggle between rival political systems which, he says, can have only one winner. Between them, Mr Trump and Mr Biden have engineered the most dramatic break in American foreign policy in the five decades since Richard Nixon went to China.Mr Biden and his team base their doctrine on the belief that China is "less interested in coexistence and more interested in dominance". The task of American policy is to blunt Chinese ambitions. America will work with China in areas of common interest, like climate change, but counter its ambitions elsewhere. That means building up the strength at home and working abroad with allies that can supplement its economic, technological, diplomatic, military and moral heft.Much about Mr Biden's new doctrine makes sense. The optimistic case for engagement has crumbled under the realities of Chinese power. Led by President Xi Jinping, China has garrisoned the South China Sea, imposed party rule on Hong Kong, threatened Taiwan, skirmished with India and has tried to subvert Western values in international bodies. Many countries are alarmed by China's "wolf warrior" diplomacy.But the details of the Biden doctrine contain much to worry about—not least that it is unlikely to work. One problem is how Mr Biden defines the threat. Because politics in Washington is broken, he seems to feel that he needs the spirit of Pearl Harbour to help rekindle a sense of national purpose. That is a miscalculation.It is true that Republicans jump on anything they can portray as soft on China (even though every time they say that the presidential election was stolen, they do the work of Chinese propagandists). However, Republicans are unlikely to start backing Mr Biden's domestic agenda just because it has the word "China" stamped on the cover.Worse, the more Mr Biden uses strident rhetoric to galvanise Americans, the harder he makes his task of galvanising allies and big emerging powers like India and Indonesia. By framing the relationship as a zero-sum contest, he is presenting them with a Manichean struggle between democracy and autocracy, rather than the search for co-existence. Alas, in this he is overestimating America's influence and underestimating how much potential allies have to lose by turning their back on China.By many economic measures China will become a dominant force, whatever America does. It will have the world's biggest economy and it is already the largest trading goods partner of almost twice as many countries as America. Germany, Europe's export powerhouse, aims to sustain commercial links with China even as political links buckle. In South-East Asia many countries look to America for their security and China for their prosperity. If forced to choose between the superpowers, some may pick China.Rather than imposing a decision on other countries today, Mr Biden needs to win them around. And his best chance of that is for America to demonstrate that it can thrive at home and be the leader of a successful and open world economy.Here, too, the details of Mr Biden's scheme are troubling. Rather than build on America's strengths as the champion of global rules, the administration is using the threat of China to further its domestic agenda. Its doctrine is full of industrial policy, government intervention, planning and controls. It is uncomfortably like the decoupling being pursued by China itself.For a glimpse of what this could entail, look at the administration's report on four crucial supply chains—for semiconductors, batteries, rare earths and vital pharmaceutical ingredients—published last month. The report does not just make the national-security case for government intervention in these industries. It also embraces union representation, social justice and pretty much everything else. More such reports will come later. If this one is a guide, Mr Biden will propose to use subsidies and regulation to ensure that jobs and production remain within America's borders.Inevitably, Mr Biden's plans have trade-offs. Central to his attack on China is its abuse of human rights, especially of the Uyghurs, subject to internment and forced labour in Xinjiang. Central to his policy on climate change is to shift to renewables. Yet the two are entangled, at least in the short term, because Xinjiang is the origin of 45% of the silicon used in generating solar power.A more fundamental problem is the China doctrine's soft protectionism. This favours incumbents over competitors and is likely to weigh down the economy rather than supercharge it. The country's new Moon programme is popular largely as a way to show that America has an edge over China. Yet it is vibrant precisely to the degree that it allows the sort of competition in which private firms such as SpaceX and Blue Origin can shine.A third problem is that Mr Biden's doctrine will make America's allies even more wary. If the purpose of cutting ties with China is to create good union jobs in America, allies will ask themselves what is in it for them.Mr Biden's plan is a missed opportunity. If America wants to stop China from rebuilding the global order in its image, it should defend the sort of globalisation that always served it well. At the centre of such an approach would be trade and the multilateral system, embodying the faith that openness and the free flow of ideas will create an edge in innovation.If America really wanted to counter China in Asia, it would join the pan-Asian trade deal it walked away from in 2016. That is highly unlikely now, but it could seek fresh agreements on the environment and digital trade. It should also put money and clout behind new ideas that reinforce the Western order, such as a vaccine programme for future pandemics, digital payment systems, cyber-security and an infrastructure scheme to compete with China's Belt and Road Initiative. Rather than copying China's techno-nationalism, a more confident America should affirm what made the West strong. ?For more coverage of Joe Biden's presidency, visit our dedicated hubThis article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Biden's new China doctrine" ==year savings, augmented by stimulus cheques from the government. To deal with the resulting price pressures, firms are adapting their corporate tactics accordingly.In the 1970s companies responded to rising input prices in a number of ways. First, they passed as much of the higher costs as possible on to customers. When that strategy was exhausted, they turned to automating operations or moving them to places with cheaper labour, either elsewhere in America or abroad.Businesses are now dusting off that old formula, starting with price rises. In April Coca-Cola told analysts that its soft drinks are about to become more expensive, and Whirlpool warned that the same was going to happen to its washing machines and other appliances. Procter & Gamble plans to raise the prices of some of its consumer products by "mid to high single digits" in September. On June 8th Chipotle confirmed it had increased menu prices at its Mexican-grill restaurants by as much as 4%. Some companies, such as Royal Canin, which makes pet food, have kept prices steady but cut the size of their portions.Michael Goldman, who runs Carolina Casting, which makes furniture in North Carolina, has seen the cost of resin shoot up by 75%, of lumber three- to fourfold, and of a container to ship materials from Asia by $16,000, to $20,000. He has increased his rates for customers twice so far this year. wr Berkley began repricing its premiums upwards last year but has accelerated that in the past couple of months. Insurance brokers who sell the company's policies have not grumbled; they expected as much, says Mr Berkley.Pent-up demand allows companies to get away with even large price rises. As a result, returns, which held up in the first quarter, are expected to do so again in the second, says Jonathan Golub of Credit Suisse, a bank. Big firms' net margins have actually been rising. This suggests that as yet, far from forcing companies to absorb the extra costs, inflation may have given them some extra pricing power.Plenty of businesses are, however, preparing for a time when they can ratchet prices up no longer. Sridhar Tayur of the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University, who consults with three large companies, says that each of them is redesigning products to eliminate waste and streamline manufacturing. Mr Adamczyk said in January that he had established an internal Honeywell task-force to respond to inflation (though he was vague about what exactly it might do). Lineage, a logistics firm with 200 cold-storage warehouses across America, says it has created several such teams. One focuses on avoiding supply bottlenecks in critical construction projects, another on recruiting workers in a tight market.Rising labour costs are chief executives' biggest headache by a long way. Some companies are trying to keep a lid on future wage increases by using one-off inducements, such as signing bonuses, to attract new recruits. Most, though, have no choice but to raise pay. Andrew Obin of Bank of America reckons that American manufacturers are paying existing employees about 4% more than a year ago. But, he estimates, workers can expect a pay rise of 13% if they switch jobs. Wages for non-supervisory workers rose at an annualised rate of nearly 7% between April and May, according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics.Despite a willingness to pay workers more, many firms are having trouble filling vacancies. Nearly half of American companies complain that they are finding it difficult to fill one or more jobs (see chart 2). "It is hard to tell how much it costs to hire someone because you can't find anyone," sighs Mr Goldman. His "help wanted" ads often go unanswered; many of those who respond fail to turn up for interviews. Given Americans' apparent reluctance to get back to work, whether because of continued fears of covid-19, generous unemployment insurance, or both, wages may have further to rise.If inflation does prove stickier, some companies will contemplate shifting production to places with more plentiful and cheaper labour. All three firms advised by Mr Tayur, for example, are pondering whether and where to move, within America and farther afield. Others may want to get rid of human workers altogether. America Inc has ramped up business investment by 15% this year. Part of this is going towards automation, and not just in manufacturing. Erik Gordon of the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business points to restaurant chains, some of which are installing automatic grills and developing apps that enable diners to place orders remotely rather than at the counter, which allows fewer staff to focus on making and serving food. As hotels reopen, robot floor-cleaners are becoming more common.Many such productivity-boosting investments make good business sense even in a low-inflation world. That is the outcome which many chief executives will still be hoping for. It is certainly what policymakers are banking on. In the 1980s the Securities and Exchange Commission required companies to publish balance-sheets and income statements both in nominal terms and adjusted for inflation. This requirement has been watered down over the years. In November the markets regulator appears to have all but binned the last explicit vestige of it. It would be ironic if this now proved premature. ?A version of this article was published online on June 6th 2021This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline "Less for more" ==